This isn't a "sign up for something which carries some risk". This is a "you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to die".
Hey, you can say the same thing about the maternity ward at the hospital.
But you're wrong in your reading of the data as well. There's a vast difference between a region where most schools have average rates, and a region where half are well above & half well below average, even though over all both regions have the same average rate.
Nice try, but the article doesn't say anything about the comparative distribution of vaccination rates between these daycares and the rest of the state.
The alarmist conclusions that they try to draw from the data are invalid, because they do not recognize that it doesn't actually show that Silicon Valley has low vaccination rates.
I don't know whether the author really doesn't understand what the data is telling them, or if they just decided that nobody who reads Wired would be interested in an article that says "Surprise! Vaccinations are important, but parents in Silicon Valley aren't any better or worse about vaccinating their kids than the rest of the country!"
The article title is "Low Vaccination Rates At Silicon Valley Daycare Facilities", but the evidence is actually for average vaccination rates compared to national rates.
That's enough to make the whole thing rather suspect.
I think the crux of the issue on this point is that if the user can override it, the software that just installed a browser extension can likely override it too.
If you're installing malware that installs a browser extension, the malware can probably just replace your browser. Or patch it so that it doesn't flag a disallowed extension even without the override turned on. Or any other number of nasty tricks.
Nope. I have extensions that are no longer in the official app store, or which can't be accessed due to Google's fancy when you try from "outdated" (banned) versions of Chrome and derivatives.
There's a big fat message on every single startup when you've side-loaded an extension and clicking is required. The message cannot be turned off and you need to run a developer release.
This is not true in the stable release for Debian. (Source: using it right now, with extensions that aren't from the Chrome web store.) My understanding is that you have to use a command-line switch to enable it in the Windows version, but it is still there.
If you allow user override, then it is a bit that can be flipped by someone or a process other than the user.
Only if your software or system is already otherwise either compromised or hopelessly mis-designed. Given that this is Firefox, the latter might be possible, I guess. But overall, the notion that an already-compromised system could be compromised again is not a particularly strong reason to cripple your software.
Use a nightly or other than stable release.
This is not a good solution for developers who need to test against the stable release builds.
A security feature that can be easily overridden is not a security feature.
That's just stupid. So passwords are not a security feature if you can disable them? Disabling telnet access by default to a computer is not a security feature? Blocking Flash or Javascript in a browser is not a security feature if you can turn them back on? HTTPS access to a web site is not a security feature if you can access it via HTTP?
The default should be the one that is right for most people, but that's no reason to cripple your software for those that have other needs.
Chrome did the same thing months(Maybe even more than a year?) ago.
Chrome allows the user to re-enable installation of unsigned extensions.
Re-read that sentence, specifically the word "special." If it's a special developer build, then it's not the same thing that your users are using.
The problem in my eyes is not the default requirement that only signed extensions are allowed; the problem is that they don't even allow users to override it.
Even if you're only concerned about development of extensions, it's a terrible idea to say that, essentially, developers can't test and develop with release versions of Firefox.
Domain grabbing should be illegal
What harm is being done to society? Even if he just sits on those domains forever, who cares if "email.com" doesn't point to something useful?
#3 sounds like a technical failing that needs to be addressed to make spoofing more difficult.
Making spoofing more difficult would also make it easier to block everyone else engaged in phone fraud.
Which is why it is never going to happen.
Well, I wasn't responding to you. Rather I was responding to the guy who claimed that it was my opinion that the vast majority of copyrighted material available via bittorrent or usenet is fairly recent.
Since you apparently need some proof, I went to the Pirate Bay, since it's the torrent site that everyone's heard of.
In the first 150 torrents in the "recent" list, I counted 4 that were created more than 14 years ago. (In fairness, I didn't bother checking the dates on the porn, so it's possible there may have been a few more -- but it's obvious that from this sample it's still way less than 10%.)
I then looked at the top 100 list, which should give a picture of what content is being downloaded most frequently. From that list, there was just 1 from more than 14 years ago.
Just like ShanghaiBill, that's your opinion. My torrent list is a pile of shows from the 60s through to the 80s.
It's not an opinion. Go to any general-use bittorrent tracker, or a usenet index, and count up how much of the available media is recent (within the original 14-year copyright term) versus older. The vast majority will be recent.
Anyone who seriously disputes that needs to spend some time in reality.
and they wonder why there is a 'war on content owners/providers' by torrent/usenet fans.
Widespread piracy of copyrighted material has very little to do with copyright terms being continuously extended. The vast majority of material available on bittorrent and usenet are recent works, not things that would have fallen out of copyright even under 14-year term of original US copyright law.
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
